Article Tools

It’s safe to say that neither those for nor against the proposed development plans at the Santa Barbara Botanic Garden were smiling on Tuesday afternoon, following another grueling six-plus hours of public debate in front of the County of Santa Barbara Planning Commission. It was the second full-day hearing about the garden’s “Vital Mission Plan,” a four-years-in-the-making proposal to build 25,000-square-feet of new construction that, according to 1st District Commissioner Michael Cooney, has sparked more public interest than any other project during his five years on the commission.

By the end, the folks allied against the plan weren’t happy because the commissioners voted 4-1 to conceptually approve the project. But the garden proponents couldn’t have been too jazzed either, because the commissioners’ approval came with a laundry list of significant amendments - both those proposed by county staff and others that were tacked on by commissioners as the hearing continued. Aside from the building designs, the Vital Mission Plan also finalizes changes to a historic meadow and puts the garden under a conditional use permit for the first time, so the commissioners are also debating historic concerns and establishing standards that have never before been applied to the garden. Altogether, the plan makes for plenty of often confusing, always contentious debate - a combination that tends to elongate already controversial meetings.

Paul Wellman

Ed Schneider

No matter one’s opinion, though, the project - which garden representatives claim is necessary for it to continue being a viable nonprofit organization - will get one more airing before the Planning Commission on September 16. That’s when staff will return with the amended plans, the public will once again be able to share their views - although only relating to the plan’s changes this time - and the commissioners will cast their final vote on the project.

Among other amendments, the commission favored such staff-suggested changes to the plan as: limiting the use of pavers throughout the property, and bringing in the Board of Architectural Review to assess their use in the historic meadow; eliminating a “roadway”-type path called the Cavalli Trail, which would have run toward the garden’s easternmost ridgeline; nixing the kiosk planned to be atop that ridgeline; and denying the garden’s desired increase of large events and number of event attendees, instead keeping the permitted amount to the historic maximum levels.

Paul Wellman

2nd District Planning Commissioner Cecelia Brown

On top of those, the commissioners - led primarily by Cooney, whose district includes the garden - added some more amendments to the plan. Among others, they would like to see a five-year review of the project, to assure that the neighbors’ needs are being properly addressed; to prohibit any lengthy closing of Mission Canyon or Las Canoas roads, other than the minimum of what’s required for construction; to establish resting periods between construction phases, so that neighbors get a break from the noise and traffic; and - perhaps most controversially, as the suggestion led to a lengthy debate - to deny the use of a microwave, toaster oven, or any sort of heating device for food at the proposed snack window. Other items discussed without clear conclusions included what to do with the in-progress terracing of the historic meadow and how much fencing should be allowed.

Many of those amendments were approved solely on straw polls of 3-2, with the two North County commissioners - 4th District Commissioner Joe Valencia and 5th District Commissioner Daniel Blough - clearly in favor of many aspects of the project that the other commissioners were not. Referring to the county’s treatment of the proposal to open the Val Verde estate to the public years ago - which effectively led to the mansion reverting to private ownership this year - Valencia explained, “We restricted the daylights out of it. I hope we don’t to that to the garden.” Among other pro-garden arguments, Valencia advocated for more and bigger events, if only because the garden will need the fundraisers to help pay for the new development.

Paul Wellman

3rd District Planning Commissioner Marell Brooks

Cooney and 3rd District Commissioner Marell Brooks both expressed much trepidation and obvious frustration with how large and un-garden-like the development plans are - Brooks’ “aye” vote came with an audible sigh - but only 2nd District Commissioner Cecelia Brown decided to cast a dissenting vote in the conceptual approval. “It’s just simply too much,” said Brown. “It’s not warranted.” She went on to say the plans were “urbanizing the garden,” that it was “ironic” that a garden would propose taking out oak trees, and that she would have preferred a “lighter touch.”

As with any controversial development plan, there’s still plenty of debate in store for the future of the Santa Barbara Botanic Garden. That’ll start again on September 16 before the Planning Commission, and will likely continue later into the year before the Board of Supervisors, as an appeal is almost certain.

Comments

It's really sad that Brooks and Cooney didn't show the same courage that Cecilia Brown did. It was apparent they were sucked in by the Garden's well-financed PR campaign and didn't have the strength to do the right thing. If this plan is ever built out, the unique and priceless character of Mission Canyon will be ruined forever.

99% of Botanic Garden will be the same - preserved from construction so that Mission Canyon does not become as built-up as other roads in the area. There will be more control of visitors than before - so if before was OK, then the future will be even better.

For pointssouth, if you'd really like to experience what comes with an 'attraction garden'. Visit Descanso or the Huntington on a holiday, a Thursday (field trip day) or a Saturday in June, the traffic, the filled parking lot, the idling busses, the fast food trash, the caterer's trucks, the musicians...it pretty unpleasant. The Huntington and Descanso are wondrful gardens but they are as different from SBBG as night and day. Why does everything need to be improved, expanded, developed, why can't it remain a garden of quiet discovery and research?

micaelm - Mission Canyon was a natural and beautiful place when the SBBG was first established over 80 years ago - and would have remained so except for the construction of homes on that road - which are incredibly destructive to native vegetation. 99% of the Garden will remain as is - i.e. beautiful and natural. 99% of the remainder of Mission Canyon Road is urban unattractive.

juliebelle - Vistors to SBBG will be capped to 2007 levels. Hence it will never become like other gardens that you mention.

micaelm, why can't you people grasp the fact that SBBG is NOT a "natural public place." It is a GARDEN, which means nearly everything there was planted on purpose. Also, it's a private nonprofit institution, despite being open to the public. It is not a public park!

Like other nonprofits that serve our area but do not have appropriate facilities for fund raisers on site, the Garden could use the local hotels or theatres or UCSB facilities, or perhaps cooperate with the Natural History Museum. I think the Garden administration had plans to increase income and visibility by renting out the "meadow terrace" and other planned facilities to the public. They need to focus on the research and educational purposes of the Garden without modifying it to until it is unrecognizable.